Summary:
- RESOLVED: CSSWG F2F July 24-26, Sunday-Tuesday, in Seattle, FXTF on Tuesday
- RESOLVED: Close normalization issue as out-of-scope, send response to
i18n, and take Namespaces to PR.
- CSSWG has no comments on DOM3 Events LC,
but some members have comments which they will send separately.
- ACTION everyone: Review css3-images for next week; plan is to publish an updated WD
- CSS3 Writing Modes issues will now be tracked in Tracker.
Send only one issue per email to www-style.
- Molly is looking for ideas for SXSW; email her about it.
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
Tab Atkins
David Baron
Kimberly Blessing (Comcast)
John Daggett
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Simon Fraser
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman
Molly Holzschlag
Koji Ishii
Brad Kemper
Anne van Kesteren
HÃ¥kon Wium Lie
Chris Lilley
Peter Linss
Alex Mogilevsky
Edward O'Connor
Florian Rivoal (Opera Software)
Alan Stearns
Daniel Weck
Steve Zilles
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/22-css-irc
Scribe: fantasai
Administrative
--------------
plinss: any additions to agenda?
mollydotcom: SXSW is asking for what we're going to do to participate
jdaggett: F2F first?
F2F Scheduling
--------------
plinss: Where are we on that?
alexmog: We have a number of options: Adobe, MS, and Google
sylvaing: we don't have confirmation yet, but working on it
alexmog: Both Google and Adobe are in Seattle, and MS has offices in
Seattle as well; not sure ...
alexmog: It is possible, can do joint hosting as before
glazou: Before speaking of final location, can we speak about dates so
we can start booking plane tickets?
jdaggett: I think the exact location can be worked out in the next few
weeks or so, but dates are important to work out soon
Florian: I haven't had time to sync up with other Opera people, but
that week doesn't work for me. One week earlier or August would
work better for me.
plinss: Other folks with constraints?
<anne> August 1 is my birthday, but I don't care strongly
<anne> not like many people are around in Europe :)
smfr: It overlaps with SVG, which is convenient for those of us going to SVG
plinss: What are exact dates of SVG?
someone: 26-29
plinss: Our current proposal is 28-30
plinss: so 2 days of overlap
fantasai: 25-27 (M-W) would give us same overlap
jdaggett: Are there people other than Florian with conflicts?
glazou: I must be in Paris on Sunday the 31st
glazou: So a meeting on Saturday the 30th is not very convenient for me
Florian: 25-27 is still hard for me but slightly better
<mollydotcom> good for me
plinss: any conflicts with 25-27?
glazou: Conflict with SVG for Vincent, ChrisL, etc.
fantasai: get that either way
fantasai: If we want to reduce overlap with SVG, we can shift onto Sunday
discussion of access to buildings on weekends
Florian: could also do CSS the previous week, unless that's too far apart?
jdaggett: For me the week before is bad
fantasai: So it seems M-W works better than Th-Sat. question is, do we
want to shift onto Sunday to reduce overlap with SVG?
Florian: for me, the earlier the better
plinss: So should we say 24-26?
plinss: Any problems with those days?
plinss: Sunday-Tuesday
RESOLVED: CSSWG F2F July 24-26, Sunday-Tuesday, in Seattle, FXTF on Tuesday
Intrinsic Widths of Multi-column Elements
-----------------------------------------
<plinss> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Apr/0316.html
howcome: We did discuss this a few weeks ago
plinss: Did we get a resolution?
howcome: I think the resolution was to discuss it at a future date
fantasai: I think we agreed to leave it undefined for now
howcome: I'm all for writing a spec for intrinsic widths, but I don't
think multicol elements should be treated specially
howcome: and that would add things to consider for testing/PR
fantasai: IIRC my testing showed that multicol did have some special
behavior. I think this requres more testing, investigation,
discussion before we can come up with a spec
CSS Namespaces PR
-----------------
plinss: Had telecon with i18n and W3M, getting their feedback on
normalization issues
plinss: State of the world is that they're not going to be blocking
Namespaces. There are concerns about Selectors, but Namespaces
can proceed.
plinss: Way to move forward with this issue is to take it to the TAG
ChrisL: So we would file the issue with the TAG, then propose to move
forward with Selectors and Namespaces
ChrisL: We say this is the issue, know it exists and needs to be solved,
but has to be solved W3C-wide, and we'll move forward and deal
with it later
anne: I don't think it needs to be solved
plinss: Either way, we're not the ones solving it
plinss: It's important to many people, but something we've lived for a
long time without
fantasai: so I propose closing this issue as Out-of-Scope and taking
Namespaces to PR
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-namespace/issues-3http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Namespace/20090210/reports/implement-report.html
fantasai: So do we want to move Namespaces to PR?
<ChrisL> yes
<dbaron> It would be really nice if
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Namespace/20090210/ had a link
to http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS3/Namespace/20090210/reports/implement-report.html
RESOLVED: Close normalization issue as out-of-scope, send response to
i18n, and take Namespaces to PR.
ACTION fantasai: do the above
<trackbot> Created ACTION-331
DOM3 Events 2nd LC
------------------
glazou: I sent a comment myself, got feedback from chairs and members
of group, but it was strictly personal
glazou: I mentioned the new CSS3 UI selectors and said we could be
interested in events matching the new :invalid/:whatever
glazou: but they said it was to late
glazou: but willing to consider for the next level
glazou: other than that, I had no comments myself
plinss: Anyone else reviewed it? Any other feedback?
TabAtkins: I think Anne's draft was much better than DOM3 is doing,
but that doesn't need to be CSSWG's opinion
glazou: It's difficult to send such a comment without showing why it's better.
TabAtkins will send this as a personal comment.
ChrisL: It was good to see keyboard and text events which competing
implementations like flash and silverlight already have
ChrisL: I might send that in as a comment myself
plinss: Not hearing any WG comments at this point
glazou: Should I send official answer that we have no comments?
ACTION glazou: Send no comments comment for DOM3 Events
<trackbot> Created ACTION-332
Charter
-------
ChrisL: I got feedback that the list of high priority items (-> PR items)
ChrisL: I got a comment back saying some of those will and some of those won't
ChrisL: So was wondering exactly how to edit
fantasai: Should be instructions in the minutes from the F2F
ChrisL: The other thing is that there are discussions about FXTF scope
ChrisL: Should sort that out first
ChrisL: So my plan is to send a draft charter to AC, and ask for an extension
ChrisL: until end of August
ChrisL: Does that seem like an OK plan?
sounds reasonable to ppl
<ChrisL> charter extension lets us publish meanwhile
RESOLVED: send draft charter to AC but request extension until everything
has been worked out exactly
plinss: What do we need to do to sort out the FXTF stuff?
ChrisL: My recollection was to have that on the agenda this week
plinss: What are the contentious issues here?
ChrisL: For Transitions wasn't clear, did CSSWG want to keep that as a
separate spec
ChrisL: So whether to jointly develop that
sylvaing: Could also argue that we need to talk about that for 2D and
3D Transforms
sylvaing: They use same properties. Would be weird to move one to CR
while other is behind
plinss: I'm confused about your questions, Chris.
ChrisL: Question is to have Transitions and Animations both worked on
by the FXTF
dbaron: Why?
ChrisL: They apply both to SVG and to HTML
ChrisL: Needs to be clear how that works
dbaron: That could be said about most modules in CSS
ChrisL: That's true, but in this case, but in this case we have animation
model in CSS and not clear that same model is being used in SVG
ChrisL: More potential conflicts
ChrisL: No call for CSS Fonts to be developed in TF, since it's clear how
they apply.
ChrisL: And box model stuff doesn't apply to SVG
ChrisL: So not everything needs to be jointly developed. Just certain
things need to be.
ChrisL: And we have to get that list pinned down.
ChrisL: Vincent had sent a list of suggestions. Maybe we should defer
this until he's back.
ChrisL: I would like to go through that list in detail and see what people
think of it
PLAN: go over that list next week
CSS3 Images
-----------
TabAtkins: The big remaining issue is the gradient keyword interpretation.
TabAtkins: I think everything else is ok.
TabAtkins: There's been a while since the last WD
TabAtkins: Mostly from the last time I asked for a WD
suggestion to add a change list to the spec
<sylvaing> I'd rather preserve a WD that reflects current implementations
while pending issues are being resolved
fantasai: There's a bunch of changes to the draft that I think we should
get published, rather than waiting to resolve all the potential
issues; we should just mark the open issues in the draft and
publish
Brad: Maybe publish the change list and then look at it for a week before
publishing
TabAtkins: OK, I will get a list of changes up today or tomorrow, and then
we can discuss publishing next week
ACTION Tab: make change list for css3-images similar to CSS3 Text etc.
<trackbot> Created ACTION-333
<sylvaing> we also have issues with normative OM serialization
<sylvaing> for instance, background-position serialization is not defined
by the spec and shouldn't be defined there. in turn, this
implies Image Values depends on another draft that will delay
progress of Image Values down the standard track. another:
incompatible with current CSSOM ED and serialization in the
latter has not been reviewed by the WG either.
<sylvaing> there are others
ACTION everyone: Review css3-images so we can publish next week
CSS3 Writing Modes
------------------
jdaggett: There are problems in the spec.
fantasai: What problems? I need a list, otherwise I can't take any actions.
<dbaron> What issue tracking mechanism is being used for the spec?
<smfr> dbaron++
szilles: Not adequately pointing to the Unicode field lists
fantasai: I added http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#character-properties
<dbaron> and can we at least make sure that all the issues being discussed
are filed in that system?
jdaggett: The way text-orientation is defined, it's not clear to me that
it's implementable
jdaggett: Nat McCully also says that
jdaggett: How do we solve that, I don't know.
<ChrisL> there are issues and there are not concrete proposals to fix them
and thus, john is correct that moving to last call on the spec is
premature. Unless parts of the spec are expected to be non normative
and not testable in CR
Ed: Maybe the way to move forward with that would be to go to LC, so we can
get feedback from the wider community
jdaggett: Saying that it's LC is saying that it's done.
<sylvaing> if implementors are concerned about implementability i don't
get how we can move to LC
szilles: Simple example I put it was whether punctuation lies between two
characters of a given class be handled
szilles: my feeling was that the topics raised during the dicussion at the
F2F were issues
szilles: I reviewed the minutes, and I have to say the minutes are not at
all clear on that
<sylvaing> also, given that writing-mode is implemented by some browsers
with different values, i wonder whether we should apply the
pattern we applied to another property at the f2f whereby
writing-mode and its old values is deprecated and a new prop
name is used
dbaron: We need to track issues somewhere
fantasai: I've just been working off the mailing list so far, but we need
something more formal
fantasai: I'm going to suggest using tracker.
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/
<Ms2ger> Bugzilla? :)
Florian: Is there anything that is marked as an issue in either the draft
that you don't know what people are complaining about?
jdaggett: The problem with text-orientation is in Eric Muller's email
Florian: It's not clear why we're not ready for LC, but we're not ready for LC.
Florian: So we should use Tracker and go from there.
<ChrisL> I agree with Florian
<jdaggett> my point earlier was that the entire discussion at the F2F
of writing-modes
<jdaggett> brought up many topics that are clearly issues with the current
spec
fantasai: I'm abdicating any responsibility for filing issues. People
should file their own issues so they can explain them themselves.
ACTION fantasai: Post message to mailing list about neutral punctuation
resolution proposal from F2F
<trackbot> Created ACTION-334
ACTION Steve: Ask Eric to review current draft
<trackbot> Created ACTION-335
<ChrisL> follow-up emails should include the issue number so tracker
picks them up
fantasai: File one issue per email to www-style
SXSW
----
mollydotcom: They've contacted me to see what we want to do for SXSW
mollydotcom: I think we ended up with a good idea that didn't track with
many ppl and put us in a huge room
mollydotcom: I'm brainstorming for what to do, if you have ideas contact me.
Meeting closed.